Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trade (and Tariffs)

xkcd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 275 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#171

Post by tim333 »

throw0101d wrote: post #51
0xy wrote: post #33

People are very quick to make kneejerk reactions to tariffs while assuming the other guys have different opinions. The Biden admin went after Canada repeatedly for unfair trade practices, and issued a blanket 10% tariff on Chinese goods. The only difference is to what degree they wield the tariff hammer, and in which direction it is swung. The one thing the current admin does have a point on is non-tariff meddling. N…

> The Biden admin went after Canada repeatedly for unfair trade practices […] What were these practices?

Google's AI comes up with softwood, cheese, DSA and "Buy American" https://share.google/aimode/DL4saqlcSNZrngyPH

Those seem kind of minor gripes.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#172

Post by getnormality »

Doesn't feel realistic. The comic version at least makes sense at some level; the real-world one doesn't.

The real world version is "they're ripping us off by giving us cheap stuff that our producers can't compete with on price." Which is arguably a problem, yes, but the one thing it's not is a "ripping us off" problem.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#173

Post by tim333 »

Hammershaft wrote: post #142
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #41

I totally agree trade should feel fair. If the US sends jobs, money, food or goods to other countries, then we shouldn't get garbage back. Tariffs are a way of warning other countries "don’t take us for a ride." They help American workers, factories and towns that were hurt when jobs went overseas. Tariffs shouldn't feel like hurting yourself for no reason. They are an important tool for standing up for yourself when…

Economists universally think tariffs are dumb policy. https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tarif... Literally 100% of the 50 expert economists polled by the Kent Clark Center think tariffs overall make Americans worse off. Nobody in politics can say this simple truth because the rust belt states are critical swing states.

You've posted that five times now. Bit excessive?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#174

Post by win311fwg »

getnormality wrote: post #172

Doesn't feel realistic. The comic version at least makes sense at some level; the real-world one doesn't. The real world version is "they're ripping us off by giving us cheap stuff that our producers can't compete with on price." Which is arguably a problem, yes, but the one thing it's not is a "ripping us off" problem.

The real world version is even funner because it's not about receiving cheap stuff, rather the complaint is about receiving free stuff (trade deficit).

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#175

Post by daft_pink »

i'm a little bit confused by the current news. I thought the supreme court said the tariffs are illegal without congressional approval and the government started refunding the money.

now the news is full of all these tarriffs about canada?

What's the factual non-partisan reasoning by which trump has been found not to have the power to create tarriffs, but is still doing it with canada?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#176

Post by kennywinker »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #136
kennywinker wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s what I said - it’s bad for everyone except domestic producers of tariffed stuff. So, bad for consumers, producers of downstream goods, etc.

No, what I'm saying is it's bad for "domestic producers of stuff" too. Source: domestic producer of stuff (me.) My products require components and materials that we don't currently make here in the US and won't be making anytime soon. I can't do anything about that. So why am I getting hosed?

We’re saying the same thing. Tariffs are dumb.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#177

Post by tencentshill »

daft_pink wrote: post #175

i'm a little bit confused by the current news. I thought the supreme court said the tariffs are illegal without congressional approval and the government started refunding the money. now the news is full of all these tarriffs about canada? What's the factual non-partisan reasoning by which trump has been found not to have the power to create tarriffs, but is still doing it with canada?

Section 338 allows it. Anything Canada does that gives themselves any trade advantage allows retaliation. Essentially inevitable.

whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/07/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-additional-tariffs-on-canada

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#178

Post by a_carbon_rod »

daft_pink wrote: post #175

i'm a little bit confused by the current news. I thought the supreme court said the tariffs are illegal without congressional approval and the government started refunding the money. now the news is full of all these tarriffs about canada? What's the factual non-partisan reasoning by which trump has been found not to have the power to create tarriffs, but is still doing it with canada?

The Trump Administration first used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national economic emergency and impose tariffs on countries under the pretence that they were economic threats to America.

The Supreme Court ruled against the tariffs because while it allows the president to regulate foreign imports as a measure against economic threats; it does not specifically grant the president power to impose tariffs, duties or other taxes which is typically a power that belongs to Congress.

The tariffs on Canada are now being imposed under Section 338 of 1930's Tariff Act which allows the president the authority to apply up to 50% tariffs on countries the president finds has "discriminated", directly or indirectly, against the United States.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#179

Post by pnt12 »

daft_pink wrote: post #175

i'm a little bit confused by the current news. I thought the supreme court said the tariffs are illegal without congressional approval and the government started refunding the money. now the news is full of all these tarriffs about canada? What's the factual non-partisan reasoning by which trump has been found not to have the power to create tarriffs, but is still doing it with canada?

Even if it's illegal, who's stopping him?

Until anyone does, "crime is legal", as coffeezilla says.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#180

Post by pessimizer »

edgyquant wrote: post #152
epolanski wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the whole trade deficit argument to be beyond stupid. 1. Sending machinery, food, equipment in exchange of pieces of paper with national heroes printed on them should make you think who's benefitting really from the deficit 2. This is the 21st century, you can't ignore services. How many Office and Adobe licenses, credit card transactions, Netflix subscriptions, Hollywood movies and shows, advertisement space…

Services can’t fight a war or feed you. A nation that wishes to be a real power must be able to guarantee it can feed and protect its people.

Also, America has no advantage in services. Americans aren't any smarter than anyone else. America has a lot of land, highways, and infrastructure - that's actual advantage. So we're just letting that rot or selling it to overseas oligarchs.
Post reply on HN